Author Topic: Skylab Reuse study- 1978  (Read 39233 times)

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1020
Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« on: 05/13/2008 01:02 am »
An interesting look back at what could have been.  This paper talks about the reuse of skylab by the shuttle.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790075817_1979075817.pdf

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #1 on: 05/13/2008 01:16 am »
FWIW, the 35th anniversary of the launch of the station is Wednesday and a program is scheduled to run on NASA TV that morning (with replays later):

Quote
May 14, Wednesday
9 a.m. - Skylab: A Home Above Our Home Planet -- A profile of America's First Space Station Produced by the Kennedy Space Center -
HQ (Public and Media Channels)

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #2 on: 05/13/2008 02:24 am »
Probably the best thing written on this was an article by Tom Frieling that appeared in Quest magazine ca 1998 or so.  You could look through back issues to find the exact citation.  I'll ask him for it.  Anyway, he looked at the possibilities of using the Skylab B (now in the Smithsonian).  It's not the same as reusing the one that was on orbit, but the options were all evaluated together.

Offline Shadow Spork

  • Regular
  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #3 on: 05/13/2008 02:41 am »
That's very interesting. If Skylab hadn't re-entered, things would have been a lot different by now.

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #4 on: 05/13/2008 02:59 am »
I recently had the opportunity to talk to Owen Garrot about the Skylab program and he was most - perhaps bitter is too strong - bitter about not using the 2nd Skylab.  The first had one Gyro out, one failing, and the third was next.  He also is saddened about Saturn Vs sitting on their side like dead flies and grieves for what we could have accomplished.  Or, at least that was my take on it.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #5 on: 05/13/2008 09:42 am »
Which is why Garriott and others have been trying to ensure that a similar thing doesn't happen again with any loss of Shuttle-derived Heavy Lift capability.I too think a mistake was made not launching the second Skylab. It was also a fact that despite there being several Block 2 Command & Service Modules left at the time (about 4), there were also only two Saturn 1B boosters left. Would it have been worth it to only send 2 crews up to Skylab 2? Building on the experiences of the first Workshop, it would have been relatively straightforward to allow 3 or 4 crews of 60-90 days duration each to safely operate the station. But without enough Saturn 1Bs to launch the CSMs, alternative ways to launch them, example: man-rated Titan 34-D, would have cost too much to develop in an era when funding for space was even more miserable than it is now.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #6 on: 05/13/2008 10:47 am »
One of the ways Skylab 5 (because 1 was visited by 2-3-4) could have been put to good use would have been with at least one (possibly two) open-ended missions. Send the Skylab 6 crew up for 180 days (2x Skylab 4), and if that went well, send up Skylab 7 for as long as they could stay. Maybe shoot for 1 year. Of course, if there were only 2 remaining 1Bs, that last mission would not have had a rescue vehicle. But those were more risk-taking times. Given the time frame, maybe the final Skylab crew could have been brought down by STS-1...

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7276
  • Liked: 2781
  • Likes Given: 1461
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #7 on: 05/13/2008 11:22 am »
Quote
MATTBLAK - 13/5/2008  10:42 AM

I too think a mistake was made not launching the second Skylab. It was also a fact that despite there being several Block 2 Command & Service Modules left at the time (about 4), there were also only two Saturn 1B boosters left.
It seems to me that there would have been 3 Saturn IBs available at the time: 12 were built, 5 were used in Apollo and 3 in the first set of Skylab missions. That's a total of 4 remaining, which becomes 3 if you reserve one for ASTP.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #8 on: 05/13/2008 12:35 pm »
According to the "Field Guide To American Spacecraft" website:   http://www.americanspacecraft.com/    there are only 2x complete boosters left and the second S-IVB stage of a third 1B used in the Huntsville display. No-one seems to know where the first stage of the third booster is, though a complete Saturn 1 does also exist at Huntsville.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #9 on: 05/13/2008 09:49 pm »
But that's just the thing; it's OK if only two Apollo CSMs go to Skylab II, as long as the darn thing is still in orbit long enough for Columbia to slap on a reboost stage...

That simple (relatively) act of launching Skylab II could have had a significant impact on the history of NASA. Probably half of STS flights would be to the station from the very beginning. Regan would probably have wanted to significantly build up the station (our Skylab is better than your Salyut). What happens after an STS fatality in the 1980's could get really interesting...

Simon ;)

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #10 on: 05/14/2008 12:55 am »
Quote
Proponent - 13/5/2008  7:22 AM
Quote
MATTBLAK - 13/5/2008  10:42 AMI too think a mistake was made not launching the second Skylab. It was also a fact that despite there being several Block 2 Command & Service Modules left at the time (about 4), there were also only two Saturn 1B boosters left.
It seems to me that there would have been 3 Saturn IBs available at the time: 12 were built, 5 were used in Apollo and 3 in the first set of Skylab missions. That's a total of 4 remaining, which becomes 3 if you reserve one for ASTP.
The rescue skylab Saturn IB and CSM is at KSC.  The rescue skylab launcher on its side in the rocket garden and the CSM in the Saturn V exhibit.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #11 on: 05/14/2008 01:08 am »
Yup! I've got a photo somewhere of myself posing with that booster.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #12 on: 05/14/2008 02:35 am »
Got the reference:

Frieling, Thomas J, Quest, "Skylab B: Unflown Missions, Lost Opportunities", 1996, Volume 5, Issue 4, page 12.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab_B

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183

Offline faustod

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
  • Italy
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #14 on: 05/20/2008 12:01 pm »
Quote
Proponent - 13/5/2008  6:22 AM

It seems to me that there would have been 3 Saturn IBs available at the time: 12 were built, 5 were used in Apollo and 3 in the first set of Skylab missions. That's a total of 4 remaining, which becomes 3 if you reserve one for ASTP.

At the time (1974), there were  three complete Saturn IB:
SA-209, for Skylab rescue, now on display at KCS.
SA-210, then flown for ASTP.
SA-211, available, now on display in Alabama.

However, the already completed SA-212, was disrupted, when the second stage become..
.... Skylab .
The complete first stage of SA-212, was set aside.
I don't know where it is now.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2008 02:37 pm by faustod »

Offline PMN1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #15 on: 11/23/2008 02:22 pm »
What orbit would Skylab have had to been in to still be up there when the Shuttle became available?

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3078
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 819
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #16 on: 11/23/2008 02:54 pm »
Is anybody able to play devil's advocate and explain why the surplus Apollo/Skylab hardware never flew? I know it was about 'funding' but you don't have to be a genius to see that it's crazy to throw away perfectly good equipment whilst having the stated intention of building a space station a few years later. They must have expected STS to be really cheap if they actually believed it would save money to wait for it to come on line.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #17 on: 11/23/2008 03:23 pm »
My humble understanding of things -

Skylab/ ASTP Saturn IB were launched from LC-39B+ Milkstool.

BUT as soon as ASTP concluded - July 1975- NASA started modifying LC-39s for the Shuttle.
Say goodbye to Saturn V (LC-39A) and Saturn IB/ CSM (LC-39B)

At the time the Shuttle was supposed to fly in 1978; the "gap" was supposed to be short.

Delays plagued the Shuttle program only from 1977, with SSME exploding on the bench, silica tiles falling...

The only way of having one Apollo a year between 1976 and 1980 consists of launching them from LC-34, as Apollo 7 did.

Problem : NASA moved Skylab / ASTP flight to LC-39B in May 1970.

Then, in November 1971 with the Shuttle nearly secured, order come to scrap LC-34 and LC-37s. The demolition went very fast, the pads were scrapped as early as spring 1972!

No LC-34 = no Apollo 1975-1980.

Check your message box for more details






Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #18 on: 11/23/2008 03:26 pm »
Is anybody able to play devil's advocate and explain why the surplus Apollo/Skylab hardware never flew? I know it was about 'funding' but you don't have to be a genius to see that it's crazy to throw away perfectly good equipment whilst having the stated intention of building a space station a few years later. They must have expected STS to be really cheap if they actually believed it would save money to wait for it to come on line.

Read the Frieling article that was cited earlier.  It really was about funding.  The problem was that launching the Skylab B would result in essentially repeating the work performed on the first one.  They did a calculation that said that it would cost X amount of dollars (which they did not have) and all they would be able to do is repeat work already done.  Plus, there were no more Apollo spacecraft to send up to it.

They determined that in order to do significantly new work, they would have to spend even more money--which they also did not have.

It seems ludicrous that they had a fully usable space station on the ground and did not fly it.  But this is the classic example of "sunk costs."  They had paid for that station, but in order to use it, they would have to spend additional money that they did not have in their budget.  It's like having a new car and no money for gas.  So you cannot drive it.

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #19 on: 11/23/2008 03:42 pm »
My humble understanding of things -

Skylab/ ASTP Saturn IB were launched from LC-39B+ Milkstool.

BUT as soon as ASTP concluded - July 1975- NASA started modifying LC-39s for the Shuttle.
Say goodbye to Saturn V (LC-39A) and Saturn IB/ CSM (LC-39B)


I don't see why Shuttle and Saturn couldn't co-exist, the way Shuttle and Ares 1 are today, had a decision been made to do so. The VAB then had three working High Bays, so NASA could still leave one for Saturn while converting two for Shuttle. Overhaul Pad 39A Shuttle, leave 39B for Saturn. The LCC had four Firing Rooms and at least one was overhauled for Shuttle, perhaps KSC could have left that one alone and built a new Shuttle Firing Room. KSC didn't start overhauling 39B until much later than 39A, and 39B didn't host its first Shuttle until late 1985. This would have cost more money, of course, but it doesn't seem to me to be cost prohibitive.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #20 on: 11/23/2008 11:43 pm »
I don't see why Shuttle and Saturn couldn't co-exist, the way Shuttle and Ares 1 are today, had a decision been made to do so.

SNIP

This would have cost more money, of course, but it doesn't seem to me to be cost prohibitive.

Money, money, money.  NASA didn't have any.  Their budget was essentially flat at the time, with all available funds going to shuttle development.  In order to preserve/launch Skylab B, it would have taken more money than they had.

Something that lots of people today forget is that NASA is an executive branch agency.  Bash the administrator all you want, but he has to argue with people above his head for more cash, and if they don't want to give it to him, then he doesn't get it.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #21 on: 11/24/2008 07:39 am »
--Overhaul Pad 39A Shuttle, leave 39B for Saturn--

Problem : NASA obtained Shuttle in 1971 because they promised it would be economical and catch the satellite market.

To achieve commercial efficiency with the Shuttle, they needed 25 flights a year (their objective for 1987 before Chalenger exploded).

To achieve 25 flights a year you need the two LC-39s...

Truth be told, in 1969-1970 Saturn V was supposed to complete the Shuttle.
Once Mars, the Moon and the space-station (= Saturn V) were dropped in 70-71, NASA switched the Shuttle to satellites and probes.

Even Skylab did not changed that.

Skylab sounds interesting to many people because it is very large. But  it looks more like a dead end (unlike Salyut which gradually led to Mir).

Skylab as an internal volume close from the current ISS. Good. But its life-span was more like the early Sayuts...something like "three missions over two years, and gone."
And you needed an expensive Saturn V to lift that in space...

MORL would have been a much better choice
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4308/ch9.htm#296

"...The economical Apollo Extension System became NASA's surrogate choice for its first orbiting space station. This crushed Langley researchers' dreams for MORL. Instead of a versatile laboratory with an extended life of five years in which all sorts of experiments could be done, NASA would settle, at least for the time being, for a small space station with a limited life. This station would be launched as soon as possible after Apollo astronauts set foot on the moon..."
« Last Edit: 01/30/2010 07:59 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3078
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 819
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #22 on: 11/24/2008 08:41 am »
Is anybody able to play devil's advocate and explain why the surplus Apollo/Skylab hardware never flew? I know it was about 'funding' but you don't have to be a genius to see that it's crazy to throw away perfectly good equipment whilst having the stated intention of building a space station a few years later. They must have expected STS to be really cheap if they actually believed it would save money to wait for it to come on line.

Read the Frieling article that was cited earlier.  It really was about funding.  The problem was that launching the Skylab B would result in essentially repeating the work performed on the first one.  They did a calculation that said that it would cost X amount of dollars (which they did not have) and all they would be able to do is repeat work already done.  Plus, there were no more Apollo spacecraft to send up to it.

They determined that in order to do significantly new work, they would have to spend even more money--which they also did not have.

It seems ludicrous that they had a fully usable space station on the ground and did not fly it.  But this is the classic example of "sunk costs."  They had paid for that station, but in order to use it, they would have to spend additional money that they did not have in their budget.  It's like having a new car and no money for gas.  So you cannot drive it.
I totally understand that there was no money, but there was also the idea that once STS was flying there would be a station required... seems a bit foolish to throw away the one you've already built whilst at the same time promising to build one a few years down the line. Perhaps the design of Skylab B was unsuited to longer missions? A repeat of the first Skylab would obviously have been of limited value.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #23 on: 11/24/2008 10:46 am »
Skylab B was a clone of Skylab A
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #24 on: 11/24/2008 05:36 pm »

Money, money, money.  NASA didn't have any.  Their budget was essentially flat at the time, with all available funds going to shuttle development.  In order to preserve/launch Skylab B, it would have taken more money than they had.

I am aware of that, hence I said it would have required more money (but not, I think, a great deal more money). Archibald seemed to be saying there were engineering reasons why Saturn couldn't have continued once Shuttle was approved, because NASA was converting everything for Shuttle. I was just pointing out that's not the case, not everything was converted to Shuttle and some big Apollo infrastructure (the MLP with the milkstool and Pad 39B) were intact into the early 1980s.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #25 on: 11/24/2008 08:31 pm »
I am aware of that, hence I said it would have required more money (but not, I think, a great deal more money).

It's all relative.  For a man who has no shoes, a dollar is a lot of money.

NASA was short of cash, and in order to maintain the Saturn launch pad and the Saturn to launch the Skylab--or in order to launch the Skylab and keep it operating for years until the shuttle was flying--would have cost hundreds of millions of dollars.  NASA did not have that money.

The Frieling article really is the place to go.  What he demonstrated is that NASA seriously considered its options and concluded, reluctantly, that they could not afford to launch the Skylab B and do anything useful with it.  They would have had to cancel something else that they wanted to do.  What should that have been?  Cancel Viking?  Voyager?  It was a tough call and they made it.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #26 on: 11/24/2008 08:32 pm »
Perhaps the design of Skylab B was unsuited to longer missions? A repeat of the first Skylab would obviously have been of limited value.

Get a copy of the Frieling article.  I've contacted him and informed him of this thread.  Maybe if he has a scan of the article he can post it.

Offline DfwRevolution

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #27 on: 11/24/2008 09:59 pm »
It seems ludicrous that they had a fully usable space station on the ground and did not fly it.  But this is the classic example of "sunk costs."  They had paid for that station, but in order to use it, they would have to spend additional money that they did not have in their budget.  It's like having a new car and no money for gas.  So you cannot drive it.

I think the real missed opportunity wasn't Skylab II in the 70s, but in not flying *any* space station during the 80s. Perhaps we could have flown a modest, low-cost space station (in comparison to Freedom) by salvaging the Skylab II systems and integrating them into a new pressure vessel for launch in the Shuttle payload bay. What I'm describing is basically an American Mir.

While certainly not as sexy as the Freedom proposal, at least it would have been something. Depending on how you want to configure this station, operational capability could have been reached in 1-2 Shuttle flights.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #28 on: 11/24/2008 11:41 pm »
Quote from: DfwRevolution

While certainly not as sexy as the Freedom proposal, at least it would have been something. Depending on how you want to configure this station, operational capability could have been reached in 1-2 Shuttle flights.

To do what?   There wouldn't be any room or resources to do anything.
« Last Edit: 11/24/2008 11:42 pm by Jim »

Offline DfwRevolution

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #29 on: 11/25/2008 03:39 am »
Quote from: DfwRevolution

While certainly not as sexy as the Freedom proposal, at least it would have been something. Depending on how you want to configure this station, operational capability could have been reached in 1-2 Shuttle flights.

To do what?   There wouldn't be any room or resources to do anything.

Did Mir or even the ISS have that much research capability when the first expedition arrived? (not being sarcastic, just asking)

I intentionally left it to the reader to decide for themselves what they consider the bare-minimum for a space station. The Soviet Union was able to begin operations on Mir with only a 20,000 kg core module. I don't think humble beginnings preclude scientific return.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #30 on: 11/25/2008 04:23 am »
Quote from: DfwRevolution

While certainly not as sexy as the Freedom proposal, at least it would have been something. Depending on how you want to configure this station, operational capability could have been reached in 1-2 Shuttle flights.

To do what?   There wouldn't be any room or resources to do anything.

Longer duration Spacelab experiments.  After all, you could do Spacelab experiments in, er, Spacelab.  So if you could extend the flight duration a bit, you could get a month or two of experiments in Spacelab equivalent racks.  That should have been easily accomplished with a couple of shuttle launches placing two modules in orbit.

I've long thought that this was what the US should have done.  We should have taken the Russian approach of launching a core module and then adding to it as resources became available.

But you have to understand how NASA works and that starts with understanding that human spaceflight is essentially an engineering exercise.  The engineers want to build something big and ambitious and challenging, because that's fun.  They care little about what it will actually do, as long as that justifies building it in the first place.

So they establish a set of assumptions that are also big and ambitious.  In the case of the space station, they decided that it would have a significant micro-g area, and it would also mount both Earth-viewing and astronomy sensors.  And it could also have a construction/support role.  All of this cried out for a very large station, and that's how Space Station Freedom was conceived. 

But what then happened was that the engineering costs kept overrunning, and when that happened, they threw off the easiest things to discard, which were the things that were supposed to be added late in construction, i.e. all the science stuff that established the initial justification for the station (there's a pretty long list).  That way, over a long period of time, what we ended up with was an engineering project, where all the time and effort is expended building and maintaining the station, and not actually _doing_ anything on it.  After ten years of construction, the astronauts are able to perform three hours of experiments per _week_ on the ISS.

If the U.S. had instead taken the Soviet Salyut/Mir approach, they could have been conducting initial science experiments from the start and adding to that as the station grew.  Yeah, you can argue that the science would not have been terribly ambitious, but 70% (or even 40%) of something is better than 100% of nothing.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7276
  • Liked: 2781
  • Likes Given: 1461
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #31 on: 11/25/2008 09:40 am »
I think the real missed opportunity wasn't Skylab II in the 70s, but in not flying *any* space station during the 80s. Perhaps we could have flown a modest, low-cost space station (in comparison to Freedom) by salvaging the Skylab II systems and integrating them into a new pressure vessel for launch in the Shuttle payload bay. What I'm describing is basically an American Mir.

While certainly not as sexy as the Freedom proposal, at least it would have been something. Depending on how you want to configure this station, operational capability could have been reached in 1-2 Shuttle flights.

One thing that NASA studied was preserving the two remaining Saturn Vs and the capability to fly them until the 1980s.  That would have allowed the classic 33-foot-diameter station.  No doubt the cost of doing this would have been pretty large, though, and I'm sure the risk was not tiny either.

Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #32 on: 11/25/2008 07:52 pm »
And what about use Skylab B ONLY for STS missions?
Launch it in 1975-76,and upgrade it with Shuttle in 1982-83.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #33 on: 11/25/2008 09:07 pm »
And what about use Skylab B ONLY for STS missions?
Launch it in 1975-76,and upgrade it with Shuttle in 1982-83.


How do you resupply it for 6-7 years with no US manned spaceflight capability?  And where does the money come from?

There seems to be an assumption in many of these posts that the reason that NASA did not do these things is because NASA was stupid.  I strongly recommend that you get the Frieling article and read it.  What he demonstrates is that NASA did consider a lot of options.  But they simply did not have the money to pursue them.  They chose not to launch the Skylab B module not because they were stupid, but because they did not have enough money to do that and to build the Space Shuttle.
« Last Edit: 11/25/2008 10:10 pm by Blackstar »

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #34 on: 11/25/2008 09:16 pm »
If only they would have gone with Jarvis instead of the Shuttle. Hindsight is an easy game to play. Especially as Jarvis was 15 years after Apollo.  ;D
« Last Edit: 11/25/2008 09:17 pm by nacnud »

Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #35 on: 11/25/2008 11:59 pm »
And what about use Skylab B ONLY for STS missions?
Launch it in 1975-76,and upgrade it with Shuttle in 1982-83.


How do you resupply it for 6-7 years with no US manned spaceflight capability?  And where does the money come from?

Resupply for what?
after the launch Skylab B is simply waiting for the first STS mission to laboratory.
All systems in Skylab B for 6-7 years are "sleeping".
After,  STS missions reactive the laboratory and upgrade Skylab B with new modules.
And so the United States a large Space Station from early 80s for a(relatively)  cheap cost.
Is a bad idea?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #36 on: 11/26/2008 12:27 am »

Resupply for what?
after the launch Skylab B is simply waiting for the first STS mission to laboratory.
All systems in Skylab B for 6-7 years are "sleeping".

Is a bad idea?

Bad idea.

Skylab 1 re entered in less than 7 years
Not all systems can "sleep"
Skylab 1 CMG's went bad after two years
The materials on Skylab 1 were only certified for less than 2 years

Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #37 on: 11/26/2008 02:27 am »
And if NASA had work at a laboratory for the Shuttle based on Saturn V hardware from early 70s?

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #38 on: 11/26/2008 07:06 am »
They did!

The big "1969 space base" had a core launched by a Saturn V.

Early 1970 Nixon postponed the space-station indefinitively. NASA then studied a "modular space station" (only at low level) in 1971-72.

Then come the "Manned Orbital Facility" in1975. NASA had serious hopes in 1975-77 for a station, with Shuttle R&D budget declining from 1978.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1975/1975%20-%202897.html

Election of Carter and ensuing budget cuts killed the project.


Shuttle and Skylab atmospheres  were very different. Skylab was more like Apollo, while the Shuttle atmosphere was similar to Soyuz (15psi, air)

A question to ingeneers here...

There was a spare ASTP-DM. Was it possible to use it between Skylab  and the Shuttle ?
I think of a combination of the DM with spacelab pressurised module
(I know that Germany delivered Spacelab to NASA in 1980 only)

« Last Edit: 11/26/2008 07:12 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3078
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 819
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #39 on: 11/26/2008 10:43 am »
I don't want to imply that NASA are or were 'stupid'. There wasn't enough money to do everything. I guess what I really meant was that the people controlling the finances were being rather short-sighted, letting a ready-to-go station be junked whilst supposedly being committed to a station in the early 80s, which would obviously cost a heck of a lot more.
This changes, though, when you realise that Skylab B would have had to be launched quite early to allow Saturn to be shut down, and then lie dormant for many years, and that even if it miraculously proved to be in a fit state for use once STS was ready, would only have duplicated the work of the original Skylab.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #40 on: 11/26/2008 07:33 pm »
I don't want to imply that NASA are or were 'stupid'. There wasn't enough money to do everything. I guess what I really meant was that the people controlling the finances were being rather short-sighted

Welcome to the real world...  Lots of useful things have to get junked because there's no money.  And there's one staring us in the face right now: why are we junking shuttle in 2010 and going for five years with no US access to space?  Wouldn't the wise thing to do be to fly the shuttle right up until the replacement is ready?  Why aren't we doing that?  Money. 

(Okay, okay, there are policy reasons too.  We did make a policy decision to stop flying shuttle because of the risk of another accident.  But you see my point.)

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #41 on: 11/26/2008 07:35 pm »
Okay, Mr. Frieling scanned his article and provided it to me to post here.  He holds the copyright and all that.

My suggestion is that for anybody who has a question about why Skylab B never flew, download this doc, print it out, and read it.  You'll find it informative.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #42 on: 11/26/2008 09:32 pm »
Okay, Mr. Frieling scanned his article and provided it to me to post here.  He holds the copyright and all that.

My suggestion is that for anybody who has a question about why Skylab B never flew, download this doc, print it out, and read it.  You'll find it informative.
Thanks to you and Mr. Frieling for making that available.  Only going to be able to skim it until after Turkey Time over the next few days, but the bit towards the end outlining the words from Senator Weicker sounds familiar.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3078
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 819
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #43 on: 11/27/2008 12:03 am »
Fascinating article, thanks very much for obtaining it.
It doesn't really paint a picture of a second Skylab, even on a 'replica' mission, as being scientifically worthless, though. In fact it really does seem to say that the budgetary pressures led to a lost opportunity.
With the beneft of hindsight, and with what we now known abuot how long it took to get STS and a space station, is the scrapping of the hardware now seen as a mistake?
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #44 on: 11/27/2008 02:17 am »
Fascinating article, thanks very much for obtaining it.
It doesn't really paint a picture of a second Skylab, even on a 'replica' mission, as being scientifically worthless, though. In fact it really does seem to say that the budgetary pressures led to a lost opportunity.
With the beneft of hindsight, and with what we now known abuot how long it took to get STS and a space station, is the scrapping of the hardware now seen as a mistake?

What would you have cut to prevent the scrapping of the hardware?
JRF

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3078
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 819
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #45 on: 11/27/2008 01:16 pm »
Well, rather than cutting something, you point out to those holding the purse strings that NASA has a mandate to do things cheaper, including a space station. Spend a comparatively small sum now, and save yourself a much bigger sum a few years down the road. It's about thinking medium rather than short term. Were the politicans really so short-sighted?

I suppose if you had to cut something, maybe postpone Viking. It was a massive program and there was no particular hurry to get to Mars since the Soviets were making a bit of a mess of it.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #46 on: 11/27/2008 05:37 pm »
This is not an argument: There is no particular hurry to do science in space - manned or robotic. There are some limited applications (communications, earth observing), but Viking or Skylab B don't qualify. Mars is not going away, nor is LEO or the moon etc. So be careful with these arguments, they can strike you back.

Analyst

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1020
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #47 on: 11/27/2008 06:07 pm »
Well since we are talking about Skylab B, here is a picture for you

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #48 on: 11/27/2008 06:21 pm »
Well, rather than cutting something, you point out to those holding the purse strings that NASA has a mandate to do things cheaper, including a space station. Spend a comparatively small sum now, and save yourself a much bigger sum a few years down the road. It's about thinking medium rather than short term. Were the politicans really so short-sighted?

Possibly. But more likely they were simply dealing with the expensive aftermath of an unpopular war, an ongoing energy crisis caused by the 1973 embargo, and any number of other crises demanding attention.

Quote
I suppose if you had to cut something, maybe postpone Viking. It was a massive program and there was no particular hurry to get to Mars since the Soviets were making a bit of a mess of it.

Doesn't work that way. "Delaying" Viking doesn't save money unless you lay off the work force, and once you lay them off they scatter, making it impossible to reconstitute the program later.

"Delay" is a word that sets off my alarm bells whenever a politician uses it, because it's really a code word for "cancel the program in a way that doesn't leave my fingerprints on it."

OK, so you'd cancel Viking, or would you like to select again?
JRF

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3078
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 819
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #49 on: 11/28/2008 08:32 am »
Yes I suppose that Viking would have been too far down the road already by that point. I'd postpone it rather than Voyager since there's a lot more Mars launch windows than grand tour opportunities, but I guess it wouldn't save much money anyway.

Of course, in my favourite 'alternate history' scenario, NASA would have evolved the Saturn family, creating a 'universal LV' derived from Saturn-1b with an F1a on the first stage, capable of similar payloads to STS; perhaps that first stage could be made recoverable. Develop a small spaceplane to go on top but preserve the option of flying Apollos until the new craft is ready. This seems like a quicker and cheaper development program than the shuttle was, so perhaps it would have freed up enough money to have launched the backup skylab if you reverted to 'wet workshop' configuration.
Yeah, it's fun to imagine what *might* have been...
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7276
  • Liked: 2781
  • Likes Given: 1461
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #50 on: 11/28/2008 11:36 am »
Of course, in my favourite 'alternate history' scenario, NASA would have evolved the Saturn family, creating a 'universal LV' derived from Saturn-1b with an F1a on the first stage, capable of similar payloads to STS;

I'd have kept the 8xH-1 configuration, for two reasons.  First of all, if you keep the payload down a little bit, then you can tolerate the loss of an engine or even two (depending on when the second one fails and which one it is).  That gives you higher over-all reliability.  Secondly, it means you don't have to keep a low-volume production line open for the F-1 engine.  In fact, you're economizing, because the Delta also uses essentially the H-1 engine.

Quote
perhaps that first stage could be made recoverable.

No doubt--first-stage recovery was part of the plan as late as 1961, before the rush to the moon began.  The question is, would there have been a sufficient number of launches to make recovery worthwhile?

Optimistically, NASA might have flown maybe six a year, supporting a Skylab-like space station?  I suspect the key factor would have been getting the Air Force to drop the Titan III-C in favor of the Saturn IB, just as it actually did agree to drop the Titan in favor of the Shuttle.  The Titans III-C, -D and -E flew a total of about 60 times in the 20 years from the late 60s, so that's another three missions per year, for a total of nine.  That's nothing like the flight rate that von B and crew were thinking of in 1960 when they proposed recovering the first stage, but maybe it still would have been enough, I dunno.

Quote
Yeah, it's fun to imagine what *might* have been...

Yup, it is fun.  A waste of time, but fun nonetheless :).  Must get back to work....
« Last Edit: 11/28/2008 11:37 am by Proponent »

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3078
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 819
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #51 on: 11/28/2008 12:56 pm »
I'd have kept the 8xH-1 configuration, for two reasons.  First of all, if you keep the payload down a little bit, then you can tolerate the loss of an engine or even two (depending on when the second one fails and which one it is).  That gives you higher over-all reliability.  Secondly, it means you don't have to keep a low-volume production line open for the F-1 engine.  In fact, you're economizing, because the Delta also uses essentially the H-1 engine.
Ah, but using the F1a instead keeps the door to the moon open. A 'heavy' version of the Saturn-1b could have clustered first stages, giving you a 2-launch lunar profile. Or you could use those F1as to build an improved S1C stage.

Quote
No doubt--first-stage recovery was part of the plan as late as 1961, before the rush to the moon began.  The question is, would there have been a sufficient number of launches to make recovery worthwhile?

Optimistically, NASA might have flown maybe six a year, supporting a Skylab-like space station?  I suspect the key factor would have been getting the Air Force to drop the Titan III-C in favor of the Saturn IB, just as it actually did agree to drop the Titan in favor of the Shuttle.  The Titans III-C, -D and -E flew a total of about 60 times in the 20 years from the late 60s, so that's another three missions per year, for a total of nine.  That's nothing like the flight rate that von B and crew were thinking of in 1960 when they proposed recovering the first stage, but maybe it still would have been enough, I dunno.

Yep, that's why I imagined it as the 'unversal launcher' in the same role as STS- commercial, DoD, and both manned and unmanned NASA payloads.

But this is getting a bit OT for the Skylab topic...
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #52 on: 11/30/2008 12:39 am »
I suppose if you had to cut something, maybe postpone Viking. It was a massive program and there was no particular hurry to get to Mars since the Soviets were making a bit of a mess of it.

There was a good argument for going to Mars at that time--NASA had been developing a series of ever more ambitious Mars missions since the 1960s, but a setback in 1967--the cancellation of the Voyager-Mars program--had slowed everything down.  Viking returned NASA to the more ambitious exploration strategy that it had been on before.  Of course, that's a programmatic argument, not a scientific one.  There's no reason to do any of this.  Why not shut down the Mars program for a century or more and wait until all of our technologies have improved dramatically?  Mars will always be there?  Then again, why not do that for human spaceflight?  We can just cancel it for several decades and wait until somebody creates a better class of humans.

(And yeah, re Viking, that expensive mission had an unexpected result: so much emphasis was placed on the search for life that when it was not found, the US did not do another Mars mission for 17 years.  A better approach might have been a less ambitious and less expensive mission than Viking.)

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #53 on: 11/30/2008 09:56 am »


Quote
Yeah, it's fun to imagine what *might* have been...

Yup, it is fun.  A waste of time, but fun nonetheless :).  Must get back to work....

It's no longer a waste of time if you manage to turn it into a readable novel, then sell the book...

Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3078
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 819
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #54 on: 11/30/2008 01:22 pm »
There was a good argument for going to Mars at that time--NASA had been developing a series of ever more ambitious Mars missions since the 1960s, but a setback in 1967--the cancellation of the Voyager-Mars program--had slowed everything down.  Viking returned NASA to the more ambitious exploration strategy that it had been on before.  Of course, that's a programmatic argument, not a scientific one.  There's no reason to do any of this.  Why not shut down the Mars program for a century or more and wait until all of our technologies have improved dramatically?  Mars will always be there?  Then again, why not do that for human spaceflight?  We can just cancel it for several decades and wait until somebody creates a better class of humans.

(And yeah, re Viking, that expensive mission had an unexpected result: so much emphasis was placed on the search for life that when it was not found, the US did not do another Mars mission for 17 years.  A better approach might have been a less ambitious and less expensive mission than Viking.)

Well I didn't mean delaying things by more than five years or so. Perhaps that time would have been sufficient for the Soviets to get some more successful Mars missions done, which might have been a good thing in terms of competition.

I'm too young to remember Viking as it happened, but all my books on space as a kid said that Viking found 'no signs of life'. When I was a bit older I found out how much more interesting the results had actually been. Would it be fair to say that with such a complex, expensve, and high-profile mission, 'I don't know' wasn't an acceptable answer? So since a definitve 'yes' would have been wrong, they had to give a 'no'. Cue seventeen years of disinterest in Mars.

A less ambitious mission wouldn't have been able to provide a definitive 'no', and thus followup missions could have been more easily justified.

Anyway, returning to the topic: having read the Friedling article, it seems that certain people at NASA felt that there was definite merit in launching the second Skylab, even if only to duplicate the missions performed already. It could probably have been the cheapest space station program the US would ever have had. Sadly, a short-sighted funding situation prevented this from happening- which wasn't NASA's fault.

One more technical question- how feasible would it have been to assume that Skylab-B, if launched in the mid to late 1970s, would have had the capacity to survive in orbit long enough to work in conjunction with STS, acting as the core of a small US space station, perhpas something designed to act as a stepping stone to Freedom, in the way that Gemini did for Apollo?
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #55 on: 11/30/2008 01:40 pm »
I suspect the key factor would have been getting the Air Force to drop the Titan III-C in favor of the Saturn IB, just as it actually did agree to drop the Titan in favor of the Shuttle.

Never.  It was more expensive and had no west capability.  Don't forget the T-IIIB types in the yearly flight rates.

Titan was a family, Saturn IB wasn't
« Last Edit: 11/30/2008 01:41 pm by Jim »

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #56 on: 11/30/2008 02:24 pm »
1-Would it be fair to say that with such a complex, expensive, and high-profile mission, 'I don't know' wasn't an acceptable answer?

2-One more technical question- how feasible would it have been to assume that Skylab-B, if launched in the mid to late 1970s, would have had the capacity to survive in orbit long enough to work in conjunction with STS, acting as the core of a small US space station, perhpas something designed to act as a stepping stone to Freedom, in the way that Gemini did for Apollo?

1-Yes.

2-There are some studies on the NTRS server that address adapting Skylab for shuttle visits.  You can go look them up.  They're big reports.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #57 on: 11/30/2008 03:53 pm »
1-Would it be fair to say that with such a complex, expensive, and high-profile mission, 'I don't know' wasn't an acceptable answer?

1-Yes.

Could you go a little more into details. Viking did much more than looking for life. You don't always get the answers you desire. This is science.

Analyst

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #58 on: 12/01/2008 01:17 am »
Could you go a little more into details. Viking did much more than looking for life. You don't always get the answers you desire. This is science.

Viking was more than about the search for life.  However, it was a very expensive mission (remains the most expensive planetary mission to date, when adjusted for inflation) and it created false expectations about the possibility of detecting life.  The result was that whenever Mars was discussed after Viking, the attitude among the policy makers (and many scientists) was that Mars "had its chance," had spent a lot of money, had not made a major discovery... and it was time for other missions to get an opportunity.

A similar thing happened with robotic Moon missions after Apollo.

This is science/space policy, and it's not ruled by a strictly rational set of criteria that everybody agrees on.  There are biases and quirks in the decision making process, and one of those is the belief that certain missions "get their turn" and then go to the back of the line for funding.  There is no reason why the decisions have to be based upon some sense of "fairness" instead of strict scientific considerations, but they are.

You could argue (I would argue) that the system is much more rational and logical and orderly today than it was back then.  But note that the current NASA science budget includes decisions made to reduce the money allocated to Mars based partly upon the view by a senior NASA official (since departed) that Mars had taken up too much of the space science budget in recent years and the budget had to be balanced out in favor of the other planets.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7276
  • Liked: 2781
  • Likes Given: 1461
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #59 on: 12/02/2008 03:00 pm »
I suspect the key factor would have been getting the Air Force to drop the Titan III-C in favor of the Saturn IB, just as it actually did agree to drop the Titan in favor of the Shuttle.

Never.

I'm inclined to agree that it never would have happened, but I'm thinking that more for political rather than technical reasons.

Quote
It [the Saturn IB] was more expensive and had no west capability.

I'm skeptical of the cost figures on several grounds.  First of all, probably one reason that Titan looked cheaper was that its fixed costs were could be borne in large part by the Titan ICBM.  But in 1970s, that advantage would vanish as ICBM run was completed.

Then there's reliability.  The Titan III family was just never very reliable.  The III-C's record was about 85%, for example.  Now if you're payload is worth, say, $1 billion, then a failure rate that's about 10% higher than IB's means an additional cost on the order of $100 million per vehicle.

To top it all off, the III-C's capability to LEO was only about 70% that of the IB.  Apparently that was adequate in 1970, but over then next two decades the Air Force spent billions upgrading the Titan (the 34D, the 4A and 4B) so that by the 90s it had about the same capability that the IB had demonstrated in 1966.

Quote
Don't forget the T-IIIB types in the yearly flight rates.

Titan was a family, Saturn IB wasn't

I think you and I are looking at flight rates for different reasons.  I was trying to estimate the demand for heavy launches, for which purpose the III-B is not relevant.  If I understand your point correctly, you're referring to the fact that the III-B's relatively frequent launches lowered costs.  That's a relevant point.  In my scenario, I suppose I would transfer the III-B's payloads to the Atlas-Centaur.  That wouldn't help Saturn's economics, but it would help Atlas's.

But then it does mean building a West Coast launch capability not only for the IB, but for the Atlas-Centaur as well.  I would have thought that wouldn't have been too big a deal, since VAFB was already capable of handling Atlas Agenas.  And if SLC-6 could be adapted for the Shuttle, then I would think it could be more easily adapted for the IB, which was more conventional in form than the Shuttle and lighter than either the Shuttle or the III-C.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #60 on: 12/02/2008 03:29 pm »
I'm inclined to agree that it never would have happened, but I'm thinking that more for political rather than technical reasons.


I'm skeptical of the cost figures on several grounds.  First of all, probably one reason that Titan looked cheaper was that its fixed costs were could be borne in large part by the Titan ICBM.  But in 1970s, that advantage would vanish as ICBM run was completed.


To top it all off, the III-C's capability to LEO was only about 70% that of the IB.  Apparently that was adequate in 1970, but over then next two decades the Air Force spent billions upgrading the Titan (the 34D, the 4A and 4B) so that by the 90s it had about the same capability that the IB had demonstrated in 1966.

I think you and I are looking at flight rates for different reasons.  I was trying to estimate the demand for heavy launches, for which purpose the III-B is not relevant.  If I understand your point correctly, you're referring to the fact that the III-B's relatively frequent launches lowered costs.  That's a relevant point.  In my scenario, I suppose I would transfer the III-B's payloads to the Atlas-Centaur.  That wouldn't help Saturn's economics, but it would help Atlas's.

But then it does mean building a West Coast launch capability not only for the IB, but for the Atlas-Centaur as well.  I would have thought that wouldn't have been too big a deal, since VAFB was already capable of handling Atlas Agenas.  And if SLC-6 could be adapted for the Shuttle, then I would think it could be more easily adapted for the IB, which was more conventional in form than the Shuttle and lighter than either the Shuttle or the III-C.

IIIC wasn't a LEO vehicle, It was a GSO vehicle.  IB would have required a Centaur for GSO missions.  Both the Centaur addition and the high manpower costs of MSFC made the IB expensive

Atlas-Centaur wouldn't have worked on the west coast for those missions.  Agena was an integral part of the mission

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7276
  • Liked: 2781
  • Likes Given: 1461
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #61 on: 12/04/2008 05:21 pm »
IIIC wasn't a LEO vehicle, It was a GSO vehicle.

True, but drop the Transtage and you get the IIID, an LEO vehicle.

Quote
IB would have required a Centaur for GSO missions.  Both the Centaur addition and the high manpower costs of MSFC made the IB expensive

To perform the missions demanded of it in the 70s and beyond, the Centaur had to be adapted to the T-III anyway.  In Kaputnik's Saturn-as-universal-launch-vehicle scenario, the Centaur is adapted to the Saturn instead of the Titan.

Quote
Atlas-Centaur wouldn't have worked on the west coast for those missions.  Agena was an integral part of the mission

Hmmm, hadn't thought of that.  I suppose the stategy would be to accelerate the transition to a post-Agena platform.  In the meantime, one could launch unfueled Agena's on the Atlas Centaur in order to have the Agena as a platform.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #62 on: 12/05/2008 12:56 am »

1.  True, but drop the Transtage and you get the IIID, an LEO vehicle.

2.  To perform the missions demanded of it in the 70s and beyond, the Centaur had to be adapted to the T-III anyway. 

3.  Hmmm, hadn't thought of that.  I suppose the stategy would be to accelerate the transition to a post-Agena platform.

1.  The cost comparison is T-IIIC to S-IB.  The T-IIID was cheaper.  There were no T-IIID missions on the east coast

2.  T-IIIE only flew 6 operational missions.   T-IV is not part of the comparison.  That is a different class vehicle

3.  A transition to a post - Agena platform was not required until shuttle and 15 or more years later

Saturn IB was never a viable replacement for the T-III

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #63 on: 12/05/2008 02:38 pm »
I believe the Titan IIIC was considered as a replacement for the Saturn IB.  And, as it turned out, with the halting of the Saturn IB/V lines, the Titan IIIC became the heavy lifter anyway

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #64 on: 12/05/2008 02:47 pm »
I believe the Titan IIIC was considered as a replacement for the Saturn IB.  And, as it turned out, with the halting of the Saturn IB/V lines, the Titan IIIC became the heavy lifter anyway

I don't remember it this way.  Saturn I (and then IB) arrived on the scene first, with the Army (ABMA, who had been shut out of the ICBM business in 1956 or so) initially proposing that Saturn serve as a universal, do-everything booster for the government.  The Air Force, with prodding from Martin (the contractor then developing Titan I), argued that Saturn was too much booster and too costly for its needs.  It proposed a Titan derivative (initially a fat all-liquid Titan).  Eventually, NASA used Saturn and the Air Force moved toward a Titan augmented by big-throat solids.  The matter was revisited a few years later when NASA sought funding to develop Saturn IB/Centaur.  NASA lost that battle and was forced to fall back on Titan III(E) for Viking/Voyager, etc. 

Titan III couldn't have launched Apollo.  Only Saturn could do that job.  But without a Saturn IB/Centaur, Saturn was left with no work once Apollo ended.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/05/2008 02:50 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #65 on: 12/05/2008 03:01 pm »
Dynasoar drove the T-III development

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #66 on: 12/05/2008 03:35 pm »
Another rejected Saturn 1 option was to employ an Agena stage to replace Atlas-Centaur (proposed about 1962............)
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #67 on: 12/05/2008 04:52 pm »
Another rejected Saturn 1 option was to employ an Agena stage to replace Atlas-Centaur (proposed about 1962............)
Yes.  That was an MSFC proposal, back when MSFC was in charge of what was, at the time, a Centaur development program that was in disarray.  Von Braun suggested canceling Centaur (think of it!) in favor of sticking an already developed Agena on top of a two-stage Saturn I.  The net result of the proposal (among other reasons) was that NASA transferred Centaur program management from MSFC to Lewis (today's Glenn Center). 

 - Ed Kyle 

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #68 on: 12/06/2008 03:05 am »
Here is the source for my somewhat mistaken statement about Saturn IB and Titan IIIC

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch5.htm

In particular:

As early as February 1961, an agreement between NASA's James Webb and the Pentagon's Roswell Gilpatric stipulated that neither agency would initiate the development of a new launch vehicle without first seeking the consent of the other. Then in 1962, a joint NASA-DoD Large Launch Vehicle Planning Group issued a report that contained a recommendation: "The 120-inch diameter solid motor and the Titan III launch vehicle should be developed by the Department of Defense to meet DOD and NASA needs, as appropriate in the payload range of 5000 to 30,000 pounds, low earth orbit equivalent." 16

The Titan III brought the prospect of wasteful duplication, for it competed directly with NASA's Saturn I-B. This Saturn carried over 36,000 pounds to low orbit. The Titan III-C, the first operational version, had a rated payload of 23,000 pounds; its immediate successor, the Titan III-D, raised this to 30,000. In addition to this, the projected Titan III-M promised to carry as much as 38,000. Nevertheless, as early as 1967, the President's Science Advisory Committee noted that "the launch costs of the [Saturn I-B] are about double those of the Titan III-M." 17

Because NASA was accustomed to receiving launch vehicles that the Air Force had developed, it yielded gracefully when the Saturn I-B came under pressure. NASA had conducted the initial flight test of a Saturn-class first stage as early as October 1961, at a time when the Titan III was still at the level of preliminary study. In view of this early start, and because the Saturn I-B was essential for Apollo, NASA went on to build 14 of them, though George Mueller hoped for more as he pursued Apollo Applications. When budget cuts hit home, however, NASA abandoned the Saturn I-B and turned to the Titan III-E Centaur. It had the energy to launch large payloads on missions to Mars and the outer planets, and did so repeatedly. 18

In addition to launch vehicles, NASA turned to the Air Force for facilities used for launch and tracking. When NASA's rockets flew from Cape [201] Canaveral, they proceeded down the Eastern Test Range-which the Air Force operated. That service provided tracking stations, and when NASA built stations of its own on the islands of Antigua and Ascension, they were co-located near those of the Defense Department.


Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3078
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 819
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #69 on: 12/06/2008 09:04 am »
Why was Saturn so much more expensive than Titan?
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #70 on: 12/06/2008 11:35 am »
(I suppose) because it was much "wider" and used a complex cluster of eight*Jupiter engines/tanks as first stage.

Titan looks more straightforward, two engines plus two large solids...

Aren't solids cheaper than liquid-fuelled engines ?

Btw thank you for the info on Saturn I/ Agena. Very useful.

Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #71 on: 12/06/2008 12:11 pm »
Why was Saturn so much more expensive than Titan?

MSFC processes were manpower intensive

Offline glanmor05

  • BWFC Fan
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • It's not all tea and medals!
  • Blackpool, England
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #72 on: 12/06/2008 12:12 pm »
OMG, just saw a picture on Wiki of a Saturn 1B on the mikstool (searching prompted by this thread).

Despite having been to KSC and seeing both Saturn V and 1B and reading the dimentions of both, its taken 'til now (seeing that picture) for me to fully understand the size difference!!  In my defence, I wasn't born 'til 72.

Amazing!!  I'd have loved to have seen one of those babies launch.
"Through struggles, to the stars."

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #73 on: 12/06/2008 04:31 pm »
Why was Saturn so much more expensive than Titan?

Titan IIIC was part of a larger system.  Martin produced and maintained Titan II ICBMs, which were on alert into the 1980s.  Some of those were converted for space launch use, with the final launch in 2003.  Martin built Titan IIIB boosters for space missions (with Agena upper stages),  with the last of those occurring in 1987.  Titan IIIC/D/E and 34D ran from 1965 to 1992.  Titan IV flew from 1989 to 2005.  There were 368 Titan launches (all types), with many more Titans than that manufactured over the years.  During two peak years, 27 Titan launches took place.  The Waterton Titan factory had reasonably steady business (for a U.S. missile plant) from 1956 until about 2003.   

In contrast, there were only 19 Saturn I/IB launches, and only 21 complete Saturn I/IB vehicles completed (along with two more S-IB boosters) between 1961 to 1975.  No more than three Saturn I/IB launches occurred in any one year.  The Saturn program hardly left the development stage, so it is difficult to know what its true operational cost might have been long-term had it eventually been adapted for unmanned missions.  We are left watching Russia launch Proton after Proton, Europe launch Ariane 5 after Ariane 5, and so on.  They're all Saturn I class launch vehicles (though with proper upper stages for GTO work). 

Also worth keeping in mind is that Saturn was built for manned launches.  Every Saturn variant was modeled full-scale for testing in the MSFC vibration stand.  Every single Saturn stage performed qualification testing on a test stand.  Titan stages did not go through the expense of such levels of testing, at least not during the later years.

Still, Saturn would never have competed with Titan's larger manufacturing base leverage.  Russia appears to have adapted this lesson with its Angara development effort.  The heaviest Angara is Proton/Saturn/Ariane class, but it is composed of smaller modules that can also be used for small and mid-sized launchers.  China's Long March series follows a similar path.  The U.S. EELVs use a bit of this type of leverage as well, though far less effectively to date.

Finally, keep in mind that Titan IIIC was smaller than Saturn IB, able to lift less to LEO and so on.  Smaller vehicles tend to cost less.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/06/2008 04:46 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #74 on: 12/08/2008 05:00 am »
The bread and butter of the Titan launch vehicle program during the sixties was the KH-8, which weighed about 7000 pounds, had to go to sun-synch orbit from VAFB, and flew regularly.  The late sixties and early seventies saw Titan 3C used for geosync flights out of CCAFS, and only from the early seventies did you see the Titan 3D carrying the bigger KH-9 satellites to LEO.

Saturn was way too big for the smaller spysats, and would require a third stage for anything beyond LEO.  It wasn't until the nineties that LEO payloads grew to the point that they would fill a Saturn IB.  Too much rocket, too much money.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0